BMED vs. CANC

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

BMED (Future Health ETF) and CANC (Tema Oncology ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BMED returned 5.91%/yr vs 113.46%/yr for CANC. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BMED charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for CANC.

Performance

BMED vs. CANC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Future Health ETF (BMED) and Tema Oncology ETF (CANC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BMED achieves a -5.19% return, which is significantly lower than CANC's 7.29% return.

BMED

• 1D: 1.98%
• 1M: 2.19%
• YTD: -5.19%
• 6M: -5.93%
• 1Y: 17.59%
• 3Y*: 5.91%
• 5Y*: -0.08%
• 10Y*: —

CANC

• 1D: 2.35%
• 1M: -1.68%
• YTD: 7.29%
• 6M: 5.50%
• 1Y: 48.14%
• 3Y*: 113.46%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BMED vs. CANC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BMED Future Health ETF	-5.19%	21.79%	1.55%	5.70%	-19.69%	-1.68%
CANC Tema Oncology ETF	7.29%	42.92%	-5.37%	510.51%	-85.34%	-51.82%

Correlation

The correlation between BMED and CANC is 0.79, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 1, 2021	0.54

Over the past year, BMED and CANC have become more correlated (0.79) than their long-term average of 0.54, meaning their price movements have been converging.

BMED vs. CANC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BMED	CANC
Healthcare	100.0%	100.0%
Consumer Defensive	1.5%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BMED vs. CANC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

BMED

BMED Risk / Return Rank: 29
BMED Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
BMED Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
BMED Omega Ratio Rank: 31
BMED Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
BMED Martin Ratio Rank: 24

CANC

CANC Risk / Return Rank: 71
CANC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
CANC Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
CANC Omega Ratio Rank: 56
CANC Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
CANC Martin Ratio Rank: 77

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

BMED vs. CANC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Future Health ETF (BMED) and Tema Oncology ETF (CANC). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	BMED	CANC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.16	2.09	-0.93
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.73	2.99	-1.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.34	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.19	5.58	-4.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.00	14.75	-11.75
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BMED vs. CANC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BMED Sharpe Ratio is 1.16, which is lower than the CANC Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BMED and CANC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BMED	CANC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.16	2.09	-0.93
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.00	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.12	-0.03	+0.15

Drawdowns

BMED vs. CANC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BMED drawdown since its inception was -36.44%, smaller than the maximum CANC drawdown of -97.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BMED and CANC.

Drawdown Indicators

	BMED	CANC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.44%	-97.53%	+61.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.85%	-8.67%	-6.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.12%	-30.27%	+10.15%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.90%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.17%	-55.52%	+44.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.08%	-73.18%	+54.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.88%	3.27%	+2.61%

Volatility

BMED vs. CANC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Future Health ETF (BMED) is 4.74%, while Tema Oncology ETF (CANC) has a volatility of 6.73%. This indicates that BMED experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CANC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BMED	CANC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.74%	6.73%	-1.99%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.23%	16.70%	-5.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.23%	23.19%	-7.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.43%	280.16%	-262.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.77%	280.16%	-262.39%

BMED vs. CANC - Expense Ratio Comparison

BMED has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than CANC's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

BMED vs. CANC - Dividend Comparison

BMED has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CANC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.05%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BMED Future Health ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.03%
CANC Tema Oncology ETF	0.05%	0.06%	3.00%	0.56%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BMED and CANC in my portfolio?

BMED and CANC have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BMED or CANC?

CANC has higher volatility (6.73%) compared to BMED (4.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BMED dropped -36.44% vs CANC's -97.53%.

Which ETF is better, BMED or CANC?

On 3-year performance, CANC leads with 113.46% vs 5.91% for BMED. On fees, CANC is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, BMED has been the lower-risk option at 4.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BMED or CANC?

Over the 3-year period, CANC has performed better with a 113.46% return vs 5.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BMED or CANC?

CANC is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for BMED.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BMED or CANC?

CANC has the higher dividend yield at 0.05%, compared with 0.00% for BMED.

What is the main difference between BMED and CANC?

They also come from different issuers: BlackRock and Tema. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for BMED and 0.75% for CANC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CANC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 1.16), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.